Oh, I am not arguing the execution of the war, or the strategy we employed. It's obvious it was terrible and should have never been handled the way it was. But stopping the spread of communist expansion in the region was thought to be a noble and just cause, and a majority of Americans agreed we should do something. The problem was, what we did was not effective and we suffered enormous casualties as a result, and then Americans lost their stomach for the war. It no longer seemed worth it, but was that because it never was worth it? Or was it because we didn't implement a winning strategy and end it in short order? It seems we now have two prevailing mindsets, those who feel it never was worth it, and those who feel we should have done what needed to be done to win it. My viewpoint is, if it was worth it once before, why wouldn't it have been later? It defies logic to think the worthiness changed, and it makes sense that our perceptions changed. The lesson we should have learned, is not to get involved in wars we aren't prepared to win, regardless of the cost. Unfortunately, the lesson many believe we learned, was simply to not get involved because it's never worth the cost.
